1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

A. Article 17(3) of the above established rules provides that supply prices may be differentiated in consideration of the individual characteristics of the migrants’ housing site, and the Defendant also determined the supply price of the said housing site by applying the gap rate to individual parcels of land.

Article 17 of the Regulations on the Establishment and Implementation of Relocation Measures (Supply Price) (1) The unit price of supply of the sites for migrants shall be calculated in accordance with the following standards:

1. Seoul Metropolitan area and Metropolitan City areas: It shall be calculated by the arithmetic mean by the formula in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of attached Table 2; and

Provided, That if the unit cost of supply calculated exceeds 80% of the cost of creation (excluding the cost of relocation measures, the cost of relocation measures shall not be taken into account even when calculating capital costs. The same shall apply in this paragraph) 80% of the cost of creation.

3. Where a parcel exceeding 265 square meters is supplied pursuant to the proviso to Article 16, the amount of excess shall be calculated on the basis of the appraised price.

*Standards for calculating the unit price for supply of unsettled housing sites in Schedule 2

1. {LEFT [ 총````사업비(이주대책비`제외)`-`생활기본시설```설치비용 RIGHT ]} over {유상공급````대상면적}

2. {LEFT [ 총````사업비(이주대책비`제외)`-`생활기본시설```설치비용 RIGHT ]} over {유상공급````대상면적} {생활기본시설```설치비용} over {유상공급```대상면적} × {(공공시설면적``-'기존공공시설면적)} over {공공시설면적}

E. The Plaintiffs paid to the Defendant the full payment based on each of the instant sales contracts by the relevant date indicated in the “the date of final payment for sales price” stated in the attached Form 1’s details and purport of the purchase contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 13, fact inquiry results with respect to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion is that the housing site development business of this case.